Advertisement

Topoi

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 165–184 | Cite as

Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision

  • Robert H. EnnisEmail author
Article

Abstract

This essay offers a comprehensive vision for a higher education program incorporating critical thinking across the curriculum (CTAC) at hypothetical Alpha College, employing a rigorous detailed conception of critical thinking called “The Alpha Conception of Critical Thinking”. The program starts with a 1-year, required, freshman course, two-thirds of which focuses on a set of general critical thinking dispositions and abilities. The final third uses subject-matter issues to reinforce general critical thinking dispositions and abilities, teach samples of subject matter, and introduce subject-specific critical thinking. Subject-matter departmental and other units will make long-range plans for incorporating critical thinking in varying amounts in subject-matter courses, culminating in a written Senior Thesis/Project involving investigating, taking, and defending a position, which reinforce critical thinking abilities and dispositions and increase subject-matter knowledge. Teaching approaches used in the program are involving and based on the principle, “We learn what we use.” Both summative and formative assessment are employed as appropriate. Coordination and support are extensive. Objections and concerns are discussed, and alternatives, including possible transitions, are considered. An extended review of research supports moving toward CTAC.

Keywords

Alpha conception of critical thinking Critical thinking Critical thinking across the curriculum General critical thinking Subject-specific critical thinking Critical thinking glossary Problem-based learning (PBL) Lecture-discussion teaching (LDT) Transfer Critical thinking principles Critical thinking abilities Critical thinking dispositions 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This is the final version of a practical proposal that has been developing over the past 3 years. It assumes my previous work in critical thinking and my faculty and some administrative experiences over many years. Earlier versions of this proposal were presented at the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, Windsor, Ontario, Canada, May 24, 2013; in Inquiry (Ennis 2013); at the conference on Reasoning, Argumentation, and Critical Thinking Instruction, Lund, Sweden, February 26, 2015; and at the II International Seminar on Critical Thinking, University of Tras-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Villa Real, Portugal, May 8, 2015. I have profited from the many suggestions and challenges made in response to these presentations. The comments by Jennie Berg, Frank Fair, Derek Allen, Mark Battersby, Don Hatcher, Michael Scriven, Frank Zenker, and anonymous reviewers were very helpful.

References

  1. Abrami et al (2008) Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: stage 1 meta-analysis. Rev Ed Res 78(4):1102–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrami PC et al (2015) Strategies for teaching students to think critically: a meta-analysis. Rev Ed Res 85:275–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allegretti C (2005) Thinking critically: instruction and assessment. Best practices in teaching critical across the psychology curriculum conference. Atlanta, GA, Oct 1Google Scholar
  4. Arum R, Roksa J (2011) Academically adrift. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  5. Bailin S, Battersby M (2010) Reason in the balance: an inquiry approach to critical thinking. McGraw-Hill Ryerson, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  6. Belkin D (2015) Skills gap found in college students. Wall Street J Jan 17–18:A5Google Scholar
  7. Bok D (2006) Our underachieving colleges: a candid look at how much students learn and why they should be learning more. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell D, Stanley J (1963) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Rand-McNally, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  9. Capon N, Kuhn D (2004) What’s so good about problem-based learning? Cogn Instr 22(1):61–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Casserly M (2012) The 10 skills that will get you hired in 2013. Forbes, 10 DecGoogle Scholar
  11. Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning (n.d.). CAT. Center for Assessment & Learning, Tennessee Technological Institute, Cookeville, TNGoogle Scholar
  12. Clemson University (2016a) Clemson thinks2. http://www.clemson.edu/academics/programs/thinks2/
  13. Clemson University (2016b) Clemson QEP report. http://www.clemson.edu/academics/programs/thinks2/QEP-report.pdf
  14. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  15. Commission on the Humanities (1980) The humanities in American life. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  16. Conant J (ed) (1948–1954, a series) Harvard case histories in experimental science. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  17. Cook T, Campbell D (1979) Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  18. Council for Aid to Education (n.d.). CLA. Council for Aid to Education, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. De Vise D (2012) Colleges face their own test anxiety. Sarasota Herald Tribune (from The Washington Post) March 15: 2A 7AGoogle Scholar
  20. DeAngelo I et al (2009) National norms for the 2007–2008 HERI faculty survey. Higher Education Research Institute, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  21. Dewey J (1933) How we think. D C Heath, BostonGoogle Scholar
  22. Ennis R (1961) Assumption-finding. In: Smith B, Ennis R (eds) Language and concepts in education. Rand McNally, Chicago. Reprinted (1971) La identificacion de supestos. In: Smith B, Ennis R (eds) Lenguaje y conceptos en la educacion. El Ateneo, Buenos AiresGoogle Scholar
  23. Ennis R (1964) Operational definitions. Am Educ Res J 1:183–201 (Reprinted in: Krimerman L (ed) (1969) The nature and scope of social science: a critical anthology. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York (Title as reprinted: Operationism can and should be divorced from covering law assumptions)Google Scholar
  24. Ennis R (1968) Enumerative induction and best explanation. J Philos 65:523–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ennis R (1973) On causality. Educ Res 2(6):4–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ennis R (1982) Identifying implicit assumptions. Synthese 51:61–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ennis R (1984) Problems in testing informal logic, critical thinking, reasoning ability. Inf Logic 6:3–9Google Scholar
  28. Ennis R (1987a) A conception of critical thinking—with some curriculum suggestions. APA Newsletter on Teaching Philosophy Summer:1–5Google Scholar
  29. Ennis R (1987b) A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In: Baron J, Sternberg R (eds) Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice. W.H. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Ennis R (1989) Critical thinking and subject specificity: clarification and needed research. Educ Res 18(3):4–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ennis R (1990) The extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific: further clarification. Educ Res 19(4):13–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ennis R (1991) Critical thinking: a streamlined conception. Teach Philos 14(1):5–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ennis R (1996) Critical thinking. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  34. Ennis R (2001) Argument appraisal strategy: a comprehensive approach. Inf Logic 21.2(2):97–140Google Scholar
  35. Ennis R (2003) Critical thinking assessment. In: Fasko D (ed) Critical thinking and reasoning: current theories, research, and practice. Hampton, CresskillGoogle Scholar
  36. Ennis R (2004) Applying soundness standards to qualified reasoning. Inf Logic 24(1):23–39Google Scholar
  37. Ennis R (2005) Pensamiento critico: un punto de vista racional. Revisita de Psicologia y educacion 1 1:47–64. A Spanish reprint and translation of “Critical thinking: a streamlined conception” (1991)Google Scholar
  38. Ennis R (2006) ‘Probably’. In: Hitchcock D Verheij B (eds) Arguing on the toulmin model. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  39. Ennis R (2007) ‘Probable’ and its equivalents. In: Hansen H, Pinto RC (eds) Reason reclaimed: essays in honor of J. Anthony Blair and Ralph H. Johnson. Vale Press, Newport News, VAGoogle Scholar
  40. Ennis R (2008) Nationwide testing of critical thinking for higher education: vigilance required. Teach Philos 31(1):1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ennis R (2009) Investigating and assessing multiple-choice critical thinking tests. In: Sobocan J, Groarke L (eds) Critical thinking education and assessment: can higher order thinking be tested?. Althouse, London OntarioGoogle Scholar
  42. Ennis R (2011a) Reflection and perspective. Part II Inquiry 26(2):5–20Google Scholar
  43. Ennis R (2011b) Reflection and perspective. Part I Inquiry 26(1):4–18Google Scholar
  44. Ennis R (2013) Critical thinking across the curriculum: the wisdom CTAC program. Inquiry 28(2):25–45Google Scholar
  45. Ennis R (2015a) Critical thinking: A streamlined conception. In: Davies M, Barnett R (eds) The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. Palgrave, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Ennis R (2015b) The nature of critical thinking. http://criticalthinking.net/longdefinition.html. Cited 1 March 2016
  47. Ennis R, Weir E (1985) The Ennis-Weir critical thinking essay test. Midwest Publications, Pacific Grove, CAGoogle Scholar
  48. Ennis R, Norris S (1990) Critical thinking assessment: status, issues, needs. In: Legg S, Algina J (eds) Cognitive assessment of language and math outcomes. Ablex, NorwoodGoogle Scholar
  49. Ennis R, Millman J (2005a) Cornell critical thinking test, Level X. The Critical Thinking Co, Seaside, CAGoogle Scholar
  50. Ennis R, Millman J (2005b) Cornell critical thinking test, Level Z. The Critical Thinking Co, Seaside, CAGoogle Scholar
  51. Ennis R, Chattin G (2015) An annotated list of English-language critical thinking tests. http://criticalthinking.net/testing.html. Cited 1 March 2016
  52. Ennis R, Millman J, Tomko T (2005) Administration manual: cornell critical thinking tests: level X and level Z. The Critical Thinking Co, Seaside, CAGoogle Scholar
  53. Facione P (1990) Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Executive summary: the delphi report Table 1. California Academic Press, Millbrae, CAGoogle Scholar
  54. Fisher A, Scriven M (1997) Critical thinking: its definition and assessment. Edgepress, Point ReyesGoogle Scholar
  55. Groarke L (2009) What’s wrong with the California critical thinking skills test? CT testing and accountability. In: Sobocan J, Groarke L (eds) Critical thinking education and assessment: can higher order thinking be tested? Althouse Press, AylmerGoogle Scholar
  56. Hart H (1961) The concept of law. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 155–159Google Scholar
  57. Hatcher D (2009) The institutional assessment of critical thinking: a fifteen-year perspective. In: Sobocan J, Groarke L (eds) Critical thinking education and assessment: can high order thinking be tested?. Althouse Press, AylmerGoogle Scholar
  58. Hatcher D (2013) Is critical thinking across the curriculum a plausible goal? OSSA conference Archive. Paper 69. http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA10/papersandcommentaries/69. Cited 1 March 2016
  59. Hitchcock D (1985) Enthymematic arguments. Inf Log 7(2, 3):83–97Google Scholar
  60. Hitchcock D (2004) The effectiveness of computer assisted instruction in critical thinking. Inf Log 24(3):183–217Google Scholar
  61. Hitchcock D (2015) The effectiveness of instruction in critical thinking. In: Davies M, Barnett R (eds) The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. Palgrave, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  62. Huber C, Kuncel N (2015) Does college teach critical thinking? A meta-analysis. Review of educational research. Prepublished 16 Sept 2015. doi: 10.3102/0034654315605917
  63. Kosonen P, Winne P (1995) Effects of teaching statistical laws on reasoning about everyday problems. J Educ Psychol 87:33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kuhn D (2015) Thinking together and alone. Educ Res 44(1):46–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lehman D, Lempert R, Nisbett R (1988) The effects of graduate training on reasoning: formal discipline and thinking about everyday-life events. Am Psychol 43(6):431–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lumpken C (1990) Effects of teaching critical thinking skills on the critical thinking ability, achievement, and retention of social studies content by fifth and sixth graders. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn, AlabamaGoogle Scholar
  67. McPeck J (1981) Critical thinking and education. St Martin’s Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  68. McPeck J (1990) Critical thinking and subject specificity: a reply to Ennis. Educ Res 19(4):10–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mead M (1928) Coming of age in Samoa. Morrow, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  70. Nisbett R (1992) Rules for reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  71. Norris S, Ennis R (1989) Evaluating critical thinking. Midwest Publications, Pacific GroveGoogle Scholar
  72. Pascarella E, Terenzini P (2005) How college affects students: findings and insights from twenty years of research, vol 2: a third decade of research. Jossey Bass, San FrancicoGoogle Scholar
  73. Pease M, Kuhn D (2011) Experimental analysis of the effective components of problem-based learning. Sci Educ 95:57–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Possin K (2008) A field guide to critical thinking assessment. Teach Philos 31(3):201–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Possin K (2013a) A serious flaw in the collegiate learning assessment [CLA] test. Inf Log 33(3):390–405. Also posted in Italian at http://unibec.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/un-grave-difetto-del-test-colligiate-learning-assessment-cla/
  76. Possin K (2013b) Some problems with the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment [HCTA] test. Inquiry 28(3):4–12Google Scholar
  77. Possin K (2013c) A fatal flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment test. Assess Update 25(1):8–11Google Scholar
  78. Possin K (2014) Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal test: the more you know, the lower your score. Inf Log 34(4):393–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rawls J (1971) Theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  80. Rowe M, Gillespie R, Harris K, Koether S, Shannon L, Rose L (2015) Redesigning a general education science course to promote critical thinking. CBE Life Sci Educ 14(3):ar30. Examined 19 April, 2016. http://www.lifescied.org/content/14/3/ar30.short
  81. Scriven M, Paul R (1987) Presentation. 8th Annual international conference on critical thinking and education reform. http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766. Cited 1 March 2016
  82. Siegel H (1988) Educating reason. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  83. Sobocan J, Groarke L (eds) (2009) Critical thinking education and assessment: can higher order thinking be tested?. Althouse, London OntarioGoogle Scholar
  84. Solon T (2001) Improving critical thinking in an introductory psychology course. Mich Commun Coll J 7(2):73–80Google Scholar
  85. Solon T (2003) Teaching critical thinking: the more the better. Commun College Enterp 9(2):25–38Google Scholar
  86. Solon T (2007) Critical thinking infusion and course content learning in introductory psychology. J Instr Psychol 34(2):95–109Google Scholar
  87. U. S. Office of Education (1991) America 2000: an education strategy. U. S. Government Printing Office, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  88. Winocur SLM (1981) The impact of a program of critical thinking on reading comprehension remediation and critical thinking of middle and high school students. Diss Abstr Int 42:996AGoogle Scholar
  89. Wirkala C, Kuhn D (2011) Problem-based learning in K-12 education: is it effective and how does it achieve its effects? Am Educ Res J 48:1157–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of IllinoisUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations